About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Turman 4, San Francisco 2, Us 2, Crawford 2, Justis 2, Colect 1, Christina 1, Bm Ware 1, Da 1, Fbi 1, Jean Roland 1, Schwatz 1, Kingsley 1, Chan 1, Rodrigo Castillo 1, Chu 1, Loftus 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    January 21, 2013
    12:30 - 1:00pm PST  

12:30pm
the domestic violence cases. >> commissioner loftus? >> i have to say jean roland trained me. what jean said always was even if you have a high caseload you put your victims name on the chart in front of your desk and you call them every week and you find out how they are and you find that what is going on in their lives. it is not like -- it is essential to hold batters accountable and keeping people safe. gene is not someone who makes
12:31pm
excuses and demand that kind of performance. those three das are there to do the arraignment in the morning, 9-12 they are raining all the cases, doing bail hearings. they arrange a new case; it was my experience even better days when we had better staffing levels by the time you get back to your desk as a prosecutor you haven't even had a sandwich you pick up and call the victim she has heard from someone in the public defender's office telling her what may or may not be true about the system and we are committed in the way that we are to prosecute these cases i really command -- and president chu to talk about the staffing levels and volume matters if we want a system that works for victims. it takes times.
12:32pm
thank you jean for everything that you taught me, and i'm glad that we are talking about these issues so we can find a way to solve them. >> what percentage of domestic violence victims eventually recant or do not want prosecution? >> it really is difficult to put a percentage on it. i would say it is a high percent. even the trials that we take out, i know that at least half of them that we have done this year is without a victim. we are relying on other means to prove those cases. those are just the ones that go to trial. the want to do make it that far as we don't have any evidence or the victim is recanting, it is much higher. >> on the evidentiary side, we had a domestic finance cases, the first piece of evidence was a 911 tape when the victim complained and that is no
12:33pm
longer admissible. explain to the public a little bit about what is happening in light of the supreme court decision on the confrontation clause and how it affects your ability to bring cases forward. >> the best case that can explain it is when i was prosecuting domestic violence cases it was back in 2003, before the supreme court ruling on crawford. it impacted a lot of different crimes. talking about domestic violence. in 2003, when i was prosecuting domestic violence i was able to walk into a courtroom even though the victim did not come in to testify and would not testify. i was able to take the recording - and it was a tape cassette at the time - from the police department. the inspector would interview the victim onset and i would take that take, put it into a tape player, push a button, and the jury was able to listen to the victim's statement on a recording even if the victim
12:34pm
did not comment. when the supreme court crawford case cannot in 2004, we were not able to do that anymore. the supreme court decided that the defendant has the right to confront his accusers, and in this case we are no longer able to play the recording of the victim statements unless the victim is present in court and testify and be subject to cross-examination. after that ruling there has been a lot of subsequent rulings trying to define what testimonial evidence is. the 911 cds were huge one. i believe the 911 statements actually come in currently because they are also considered spend any statements. any statements made under the excitement of stress of the
12:35pm
situation which as you can imagine many 911 calls would sound very urgent or if they are in hushed tones it would also come in because it would indicate that the victim is talking in whispering tones because they are in fear. those statements are allowed into evidence most of the time. so, with that, what we end up taking to court or trial, some statements, a few fragments of the whole picture really. fragments of what the officer at the scene captures from the victims and fragments and statements from the 911 cd. sometimes that is all that we have in order to prosecute these cases without a victim. >> thank you for pointing that and thank you jean for the great work that you do a domestic violence prosecutor. you are true hero. thank you.
12:36pm
>> thank you for listening. >> commissioner turman? >> commissioner turman: i also want to clarify that in that situation, the example you gave, even the officer's testimony cannot comment other than either because the actual interview process is not an excited statement. it's not even a business record that also gets passed. that also invokes the confrontation clause, that is that correct? >> correct. -- >> it depends on how the officer captures the incident in his memory and in his report. if the victim say is in tears,
12:37pm
crying, shaking, visibly affected, and the officer is on scene right away and sees her physical appearance, we can argue in court that many of the statements made by the victim at that point in time is considered spending statement. it depends on the judge. and how the officer captures it on his report. >> thank you. >> further comments or questions? >> commissioner -- >> i have a question regarding our different conversations that we have had the opportunity to pursue with advocacy organizations. we have heard a lot about the challenges that many
12:38pm
communities in san francisco face do to language barriers. i'm curious about the impact that is having on the cases. >> i can tell you the prosecution side of it. i think it is much harder to prosecute cases when there is a language barrier because we are going through multiple levels. the issues that i have seen is that statements from the victim are not accurately translated; or, the best way for me to explain it is that when you speak a different language the translation of one word can mean different things. and it can mean slightly different things. so one interpreter may translate the word one way. say, "push."
12:39pm
another interpreter may interpret the same word saying it was "a hit." we now have two inconsistent statements. one of the things i see in trial all the time, rightfully so, the defense is doing their job. they are pointing out inconsistencies. we can argue that they are not inconsistencies because of language barriers but it depends on how the jury will see that. when we are presenting cases to the jury they have in their mind that the victim was inconsistent. first she said it was a hit, no she says it is a push. a third interpreter is saying it was a slap now that she's testifying on the stand. which is it?
12:40pm
beyond a reasonable doubt, is complicated. the other issue is when the victims don't come in to testify. it's even more of a barrier for us to get past all of the language issues to be able to bring any of the others out in trial. it is very difficult. >> thank you so much jean. i am sure that the people who are cramming for evidence finals would be well advised to watch the segment. >> thank you christina. >> next we have an update of the justice system, justis. from linda young. pieces of evidence floating or a longtime. i imagine everyone is trying to get the bad guy. there are pieces floating
12:41pm
around, not everything came together. thankfully to the dogged persistence of -- especially when linda young, being able to pull the pieces together we are pretty much there. there will be more tweaks coming along. >> good evening commissioners. thank you for inviting the city administrator's office. my name is linda young, deputy city administrator. i will discuss quickly the justis project. the transfer of function to the city of ministers administrator's office which occurred in march, 2011.
12:42pm
our mission is to support the criminal justice department and need to share information in compliance. the justis project is to provide sharing data get abilities, provide individual case management system to address departmental business needs for the police department, the sheriff department, district attorney's office, public defender, adult probation and to connect the court system. the city administrator is the executive sponsor and will provide oversight and operational decision making .the council provides budget decision-making. the technical steering committee meets on technical
12:43pm
issues and we do that weekly. some of the development since the transfer of functions. at the time of the transfer from a staffing perspective the program only had four feel positions out of eight budget it. since that time we promoted to of our own staff and added two for a total of seven. increased from four servers to 28 serves. we implemented bm ware, built two portals. the sheriff department was able to update their new release of jail management system. we work with the district attorney's office to implement the new subpoena model using police resources and mgis data.
12:44pm
for the public defender's office would connected the system to the hub. we had a new application for the council direction for the sf police department, the sheriff department, courts and da. we created a portal with the police department so they can access information such as quality of life information. we help them with the 2011 justice department report so we were appropriately assigning bcs codes; we migrated their blades; and supported the police department request for -- funding for phase i. we created a separate portal, a portal for non- criminal justice department so that we can present aggregate data in compliance, this is non- --
12:45pm
data, that is aggregated that the public should be able to see, in cooperation with the department and dr. -- i will show you four sample reports. the last things we implement it the first phase of interdepartmental notifications with criminal justice business processes so that when probations are booked, both the sheriff department and adult probation department is notified immediately. for the justice reporting portal, i want to show you sample reports. as you can see from little icons, if red, locked one, only justice department can see these reports. for public reports such as domestic violence it would be open to the public. >> just to clarify again, for folks who are watching, justis is an acronym for the justice
12:46pm
tracking information system. >> thank you commissioner. >> thank you. >> if i can show you the domestic violence dashboard, these are four reporter markup, dv cases, arrested and bailed; dv cases arrested and bailed by zip code; dv cases sentenced vs. dismissed; and dv cases convicted whether felony or misdemeanor. for the first report, if you look at the chart, this report will show by fiscal year the number of cases. when you zoom in on the year you can see by month but the number of dv cases are, and my
12:47pm
by days if you further zoom in. this is nonproduction sample data. this is mocking up for presentation purposes. if you look at this, this is for the period jan. 1, 2012, through dec. 4, 2012. by zip code you can see where the high incidence are. you can see 94103, 224 cases, and so on. this portal will also allow you to change the dates that you are looking at. if you are interested in fiscal year versus calendar year, if you're interested in a particular month you can change the date and see the same data. for dv cases sentenced and
12:48pm
dismissed what we wanted to show is this one is by fiscal year, what are the number of actual cases dismissed versus sentence and then we wanted to show the percentage count. in the last report, the convicted dv cases, what numbers were felonies versus misdemeanors? what are the critical reports they want to see? as a departments are hooking up and sharing their information with us we will then populate the fields. so we will assign mous with the various departments to be clear about what data is being shared, and what data is being shared publicly for the next. the next step, we want to connect the district attorneys
12:49pm
system bidirectionally, and the modules for discovery, an investigation and operate a case management system to a web-based version. we also want to connect the adult probation case management. and connect the course case management system; we note that they recently had budgetary challenges. we will be working with them next fiscal year to do that an expanding the interdepartmental notifications. phase 2, we want to help the juvenile probation case management system hook up as well as the department of emergency management calls for service. so quickly to acknowledge that none of this would be done without the work of the justis and the justis council. they worked around the clock
12:50pm
when the servers were down. the justis governance council participants -- they attend every one of our council meetings and provide valuable guidance and recommendations from the police department i will acknowledge susan -- andrew and rodrigo castillo. at this time if you have any questions? >> thank you very much, this is an important part of the puzzle with the justis ringing together information of the law-enforcement, district attorney's office and the support network understand and have an idea what the statistics are. this is incredible. thank you so much for your efforts. >> thank you. >> commissioner turman: the fiscal year data on the mock-up goes back to 2010.
12:51pm
does your data go back further than that? >> it goes back further than that. there is data going further back. >> within your portal? >> the data does exist; we just did not show it in this report. >> commissioner turman asked the question but i want to be clear that the data goes back further than what is indicated on the report. i also want to command and thank the team that is putting this together, the governance council, but certainly this is something to be very clear that has been in the making for over a decade. this really started with the
12:52pm
task force, which is now in oversight panel as we have mentioned previously. there is a teamwork and resources to make sure we have coordinated data that is appropriate for each department so that we can again have not only a birdseye view but it a ground view. we have come a long way. i waited a long time. as a member of this commission but also many of the folks introduced earlier who have been working on something similar to occur for a long time. we have been somewhat puzzled by the fact -- as we often hear
12:53pm
in these chambers and other matters, by the fact that certainly san francisco sits in the seat of such technological developments that are really evolving and reshaping the world on so many fronts, biotech, biomedical, engineering feats. will could not understand why we could not board and eight with the technology available, state-of-the-art information system. for our citizens. thank you very much. i am very excited. it seems as though we are exponentially improving. i don't expect that we will wait another 10 years for similar reports. i am expecting that certainly within the next year we will be 10 steps further ahead.
12:54pm
a few years ago it would've taken longer. i am very excited about this and excited that we can share this discussion with the police department commission. as far as the development of justice. thank you very much to all of that been involved. very critical. >> commissioner kingsley? >> ms. young, thank you very much for your report. it is very interesting. some of the questions i had have been addressed by commissioner schwatz's comments. i wanted more clarity around the timing and history of this. is 2012 the first compilation of the statistics? is the system established for data collection, is that a permanent part of our
12:55pm
system of data collection going forward that we will improve upon? i wanted it a sense of the permanency of this, the development of it, and not just the project that is done every 10 years or something of that nature. >> this is a very historic thing for me. and sitting down with doctor -- we talked about what is the definition of domestic violence and we really do need to go down the list of statutes and say is this in or not. the district attorneys office is tracking domestic violence cases, the police department also. we are using the management system but as the systems hoping we will be able to show different sets of information to you.
12:56pm
this is just the first touch of prototype reports. >> wonderful, thank you. >> not to over state, i think it is a critical question. it is not our intent that it be a project. this is something that would be a foundational, fundamental issue moving on. one of the challenges that we will face moving forward is one department only has a certain amount of resources to participate and to keep going, and another one isn't would could end up with something lopsided. an uneven patchwork of data.
12:57pm
as we move forward, we want to make sure we have the adequate resources to have this as even and equal participation is possible so that it is not just something that is not sustainable for the long term. >> thank you commissioner. >> commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: thank you for your presentation. i want to ask a couple of clarifying questions. it looks like the justis project replaces the cable system. my understanding is that it is a database for local background check, i want to get more of the big picture perspective and also want to find out - my understanding is that the cable
12:58pm
system was not a system connected to any databases. i am wondering if the justis system will be different, connected to any federal database like the fbi or department of homeland security. >> i am the justis project manager. justis is designed to replace the aging cable mainframe system. each department is in the process or has completed the implementation of the wrong department specific case management system. though specific case management systems connect to justis is a way to exchange data between departments. since justis is at that how point, it gives us the ability to all information and roll it up to public data as well as
12:59pm
criminal justice data. what was your other question? >> i am wondering if justis is any different. >> i know their systems in the city and county of seven san francisco to collect to colect, for background checks, as far as justis replacing the cable system, justis will assist individual departments in creating the roll up reports. we have not received whether to the technical steering committee or the justis